How true is this statement about black matter/energy?

[Anonymous No.12554214]

Actual cosmological models can't calculate what is happening in the universe so scientists add variables (Dark matter and dark energy) until their models work.

This is why dark things are undetectable, because they don't exist, it's just an excuse until they find a more accurate model

[Anonymous No.12554224]

>This is why dark things are undetectable, because they don't exist, it's just an excuse until they find a more accurate model
actually it's even worse, they force the meme until it's accepted by mainstream that their undetectable dark particles exist as supersymmetric counterparts or something. because they can't let go of newton/GR.

there is no such thing as an electron

[Anonymous No.12554227]

>This is why dark things are undetectable, because they don't exist, it's just an excuse until they find a more accurate model
And what if there is no more accurate model? Don't confuse your baseless feels with any sort of knowledge.

[Anonymous No.12554242]

>>12554224
It's been more than 20 years since standard theory correctly predicted the powerspectrum of the cosmic microwave background. 20 years later there are zero alternatives to dark matter that have even explained this data after the fact.

"Muh electrons" doesn't really cut it. If you really think you know better then pull your finger out of your ass and build a quantitative model.

[Anonymous No.12554503]

>>12554224
Take your prescription.

[Anonymous No.12554524]

>>12554214
>>12554224
>>12554227
>>12554242
>zero alternatives to dark matter
A GR theory group out of Turin came out with a more complete GR model for the MWG a few years ago and found it can replicate the rotation curve *without* the need for dark matter.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.04445.pdf

tl;dr version - if you don't oversimplify the GR it's a lot harder to derive a model, but the model you get fills most of the gaps we attribute to DM.

[Anonymous No.12554609]

>>12554524
Don't cut quotes in half you dishonest cunt.
>20 years later there are zero alternatives to dark matter that have even explained this data after the fact.
Does this paper contain any fucking mention of the CMB powerspectrum? No it does not. Fitting rotation curves is not impressive, those results are 50 years old, there are dozens of models that have been crafted to do rotation curves (e.g. MOND). All of these models introduce extra parameters and arbitrary modification, which are at least as ad hoc as dark matter. Most of them are just exercises in curve fitting. The strength of cold dark matter is that it simultaneously gets the statistics of rotation curves along with all the large scale structure observations like galaxy clusters and the CMB.

[Anonymous No.12554662]

>>12554609
If a less oversimplified GR treatment of galaxies can explain the rotation curve without the need for CDM, it's not unreasonable to suggest that a less oversimplified GR cosmology could potentially explain the CMB power spectrum.

Couldn't hurt for someone to try.

[Anonymous No.12554705]

>>12554662
>Couldn't hurt for someone to try.
People have tried, for decades, with no success. Alternative models like MOND made predictions before these measurements existed, and they failed catastrophically and then gave up. What you are suggesting is not a new idea. The problem is that there are infinitely many ways to modify a model like GR. The model in that paper is clearly useless for the task.

> less oversimplified GR
Nope, these are arbitrary modification put forward to fit the data. Note that even if one of these models one day reproduces all the tests of CDM it would still have predicted nothing novel. CDM on the other hand has made successful predictions. The other issue is that these models may not actually end up being simpler than dark matter. CDM adds only a single additional parameter to normal cosmology, that is a tough benchmark.

[Anonymous No.12555342]

>>12554705
Coming up with new metrics isn't modifying GR, you're still working within the same theoretical framework. Allowing for a black hole to rotate (for example) isn't "modifying GR", it's just relaxing some assumptions made in the Schwarzchild derivation and - lo and behold - if you do that, you find that the off-axis metric terms that result from relaxing those assumptions lead to new effects like frame dragging.

>Note that even if one of these models one day reproduces all the tests of CDM it would still have predicted nothing novel.
True, but if less oversimplified metrics can reproduce all the tests of CDM without the need for some as-of-yet unconfirmed type of matter, then it becomes an equal or stronger model for examining these kinds of anomalies. CDM adds only a single additional parameter to normal cosmology... relaxing simplifications to GR metrics adds none.

[Anonymous No.12555662]

>>12555342
>Coming up with new metrics isn't modifying GR
You can't just chose whatever metric you like, otherwise GR would predict nothing. GR also describes the mapping between matter and energy and the metric. They have imposed a simple metric in their model. On these scales GR should approach the Newtonian expectation. And it's not just this paper, modified gravity is a huge industry (pic related).

>True, but if less oversimplified metrics can reproduce all the tests of CDM without the need for some as-of-yet unconfirmed type of matter, then it becomes an equal or stronger model for examining these kinds of anomalies.
No it does not, that's pure prejudice speaking. Some new scalar field is no more acceptable just because it's not called "X matter". The most important factor is the number of free parameters and arbitrary choices, if it takes more parameters then it's a weaker model. The other thing is prediction vs postdiction. A model which reproduces known results is not as strong as one which predicted them in the first place. A model can always be beaten to resemble the data given enough time.

> relaxing simplifications to GR metrics adds none.
Nope. Read the paper. Because they are imposing a metric they cannot just calculate the gravitational effect from the matter. As you can see the metric has 4 free parameters. That's just for one galaxy. I'm not impressed, MOND can do it with one.

[Anonymous No.12555671]

>>12554214
>it's just an excuse until they find a more accurate model

I like what you have to say, but I'd contest that last bit. More accurate models are readily available, but they're rejected by the overwhelming majority of influential people in the field who still favor the dark matter idea and that same overwhelming majority of peers also uses the peer review and grant processes to silence dissenters.

[Anonymous No.12555701]

If you really want to get down to the heart of the dark matter problem, you have to remember where it originates from & that is the discrepancy between the apparent spread of observed rotational velocities in spiral galaxies and what the current models of gravitation and galactic evolution say that the spread of observed rotational velocities in spiral galaxies should be. Spectrographic observations made in the late 1970s first showed this discrepancy and the astronomical community has been banging their heads against the problem unsuccessfully ever since.
I have several solutions to this problem, none of which have been accepted by the ivory tower astronomers because it'd make them look stupid to have an outside solve all their problems. My latest solution doesn't rely of the acceptance of astronomers for it to function as intended, I think that we should start calling the dark matter enthusiasts "darkies" until they stfu & gtfo or at least learn to do their jobs correctly.

[Anonymous No.12555714]

>>12555701
Alternatively you can just add +H (Hubble constant) to your Newtonian model of galactic rotation and you will get a spread of velocities which closely matches the observed spread that the telescope lookers see.

[Anonymous No.12555716]

>>12555342
>>12554524
Also if you actually look at the rotation curve in their model it's clearly worthless. The Gaia data only measure it at the boring radii, when much better data exist. The real Milky Way has a rise in the center due to the bulge. They use 4 parameters to fit the flat bit of the curve.

[Anonymous No.12555722]

>>12555671
>trust me
Accuracy is a quantitative statement. Where are these models that provide better fits to rotation curves while matching the CMB powerspectrum?

[Anonymous No.12555740]

What if there are dark matter aliens actually infesting the universe right now?

[Anonymous No.12555749]

>>12555714
>Alternatively you can just add +H (Hubble constant) to your Newtonian model of galactic rotation
Nope. There are plenty of dwarf galaxies with rotation speeds below the Hubble constant (~70 km/s/Mpc). Also that's fucking stupid because the Hubble parameter is only 70 because of the choice of units. In SI units it's 2x10^-18 sec^-1. It also doesn't solve the other 20 problems that require DM.

[Anonymous No.12555758]

>>12555701
>I have several solutions
>They're a secret

You're too embarrassed to share your idea because you would rather live in the fantasy that you are smarter than everybody else. Deep down you know a physics undergrad could probably tell you why you are wrong, but you prefer delusion to reality.

[Anonymous No.12555785]

>>12554214
It's more than just adding variables until shit works.

Look at the bullet cluster, I'll summarize:
>Two galaxies collided at high speed in the recent past
>Based on what we can see it looks like a somewhat normal collision at first glance, with scattering and interaction, a lot like a billiard ball
>However gravitational lensing tells us that the visual parts of the galaxies, that we can see, has actually lagged behind the bulk of the mass of the respective galaxy, as though most of the galaxies mass passed through mostly unscathed but the visible matter got all thrown around and jumbled

This is consistent with an invisible, minimally self-interacting form of matter, only interacting via gravity, emitting no energy from particle collisions or self-interaction (as these would be observable). This same phenomenon has been confirmed with other interacting galaxies

pic related, pic on right shows the mass distribution of the galaxies with the contour lines and the visible matter distribution with the heat map

This doesn't work with MOND and fits incredibly well with the dark matter model

[Anonymous No.12555794]

>>12555785
Why is there no dark matter in certain galaxies or in the Solar system?

[Anonymous No.12555811]

>>12555794
Same reason why there are dark parts of the universe and brighter parts, the distributions aren't homogenous, dark matter, can and does clump together, galaxies that form in a less dark matter dense region will have less in them

[Anonymous No.12555855]

>>12555794
If the dark matter is really a low mass particle then it's distribution should be pretty smooth. That means the density is very low. If you calculate the mass expected inside the Earth's orbit it's around 10^13 kg. Inside Neptune's orbit this is 10^17 kg. This is the mass of a small asteroid. Measurements are not sensitive enough to detect the effect of such a mass on orbits.

There are claims that some very rare galaxies don't have dark matter. Actually the amount of dark matter in that galaxy isn't zero, it's just abnormally low. That galaxy happens to be a satellite dwarf galaxy orbiting a more massive one, and the massive central galaxy can strip the more diffuse dark matter by tidal forces. There are no known isolated or massive galaxies that have no dark matter.

[Anonymous No.12555864]

Is matter that doesn't interact with the electromagnetic spectrum really that surprising?
It's like being surprised there's more to the spectrum than visible light.
Kind of is until you realize that earth life evolved for a specific environment, there's no reason to believe we evolved to be able to perceive every spectrum of reality.

[Anonymous No.12555949]

>>12554214
>Theory doesn't fit the observations
>Let's claim there's something invisible to the observations and that it interacts only with what is disturbing our observations
Black matter is the new aether.

[Anonymous No.12555963]

>>12555749
The Hubble constant is not unitless like you seem to assume that it is, the per megaparsec section of the standard units involved is why Gravity is only impacted significantly by observed Hubble expansion at large scales. If you were to go and run the numbers yourself, which isn't difficult at all, its just basic arithmetic, then you would see that any object which originated in a circular orbit at a distance of 1000kpc from a galactic core at the beginning of time would have receded from the core by some 3500 light years in the subsequent billions of years. Because this object receeded from the galactic core under the influence of Hubble expansion rather than under the influence of Gravity, it didn't lose its orbital energy as it was receding, the Hubble expansion provided the additional potential energy. That is why objects seem to orbit "too fast" the more distant they are from the galactic core.
Hubble expansion is observed reality, the idea that its not a factor at galactic size scales contradicts observed reality, unless you're insistent on misinterpreting the data as meaning that dark matter exists and the Hubble expansion magically stops happening at scales smaller than 10000kpc or so. Physics doesn't teach us that the strong force and the weak force stop working magically at a particular radius, they have calculated formulas for why those forces lose effect at larger scales, so unless there is a good reason, why shouldn't Hubble expansion be considered to exist at galactic sized scales?

[Anonymous No.12556009]

>>12555963
>The Hubble constant is not unitless like you seem to assume that it is
Read. Note the units of inverse seconds. Jesus.

>the per megaparsec section of the standard units involved
But they're totally arbitrary. A parsec is based on the distance from the Earth to the Sun. An observer on Mars would have a different parsec and so would disagree. If your solution depends on your choice of units, it's fucking wrong.

>s why Gravity is only impacted significantly by observed Hubble expansion at large scales.
That doesn't depend on the units retard.

>it didn't lose its orbital energy as it was receding
Then it would escape, you moron. If the Earth magically transported to the radius of Neptune it would be gone, because with it's current velocity it would not be gravitationally bound. If what you are describing happened then galaxies would disperse.

> then you would see that any object which originated in a circular orbit at a distance of 1000kpc
The galaxy isn't anywhere near that big.

[Anonymous No.12556113]

>>12556009
You seem so angered and frustrated by this topic that you've been driven to hurling insults, I guess rational discussion is out of the question.

[Anonymous No.12556129]

>>12554214
Wear your mask trampanzee

[Anonymous No.12556165]

>>12554214
>scientists add variables (Dark matter and dark energy) until their models work
Well yeah, adding variables to make models conform to observation is normal scientific practice. Then test new predictions with more observations, add/delete/adjust variables and models until it works.
>dark things are undetectable
They're not though, we detect them by their influence on galactic motion.

[Anonymous No.12556194]

>>12556113
The rational argument is right there. If you're incapable of replying to the argument just fucking say so.

[Anonymous No.12556215]

>>12555662
>You can't just chose whatever metric you like
You can choose any metric that satisfies the EFE.

[Anonymous No.12556244]

>>12556215
Yes, but that depends on the matter in a given scenario.

[Anonymous No.12556254]

I'm just waiting for literally anyone to explain what the fuck space is.

[Anonymous No.12556522]

>>12555963
>>12555714
Actually what you propose doesn't work on another level beside what the other guy said. The velocity of the object orbiting the galaxy is not constant. Logically it cannot be constant, because that would mean the orbital angular momentum was increasing with time. The Hubble expansion is symmetric, so that cannot cause a change in angular momentum. So the velocity must decrease as the orbit is expanded.

What happens in an expanding universe is that peculiar velocities die out, they are diluted by the expanding universe. Just as photons are redshifted, so are moving stars and galaxies.

https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Sparke/Sparke1_3.html

In any case galaxies are not big enough for this to be significant. The galaxy accreting new mass will have a larger effect on cosmological timescales.

[Anonymous No.12556706]

>>12556522
Everything that was posted on Hubble expansion being responsible for the discrepancy between newtonian models of galactic mass and rotation and observed values for galactic mass and rotation has already been peer reviewed and published in both Farsi & English language academic astronomical publications. Nobody from Cal Tech would ever repeat it because they don't want to end up like William Tift, who was ostracized and had his career come to a screeching halt for publishing observations of redshift quantization and wondering about their meaning. That is the punishment at western academic institutions for contradicting the dogma which passes for conventional wisdom in the astronomical community. Many significant people at prestigious institutions have devoted entire careers to studying dark matter and none of them want to admit that they've wasted their lives and billions of dollars of other people's money chasing figments of their own imagination, the scandal and likely budgetary effects are something everyone wants to avoid.

[Anonymous No.12556768]

>>12556522
If you want to wrap your head around what the Iranian astronomer who originated the idea in publication was trying to communicate, then you can't think of motion caused by Hubble expansion in terms of conventional Newtonian mechanics because Hubble expansion is a separate force in the universe, its not governed by gravity or and of the other forces as far as they're yet understood. Newtonian mechanics functions the same in the classroom as in observed reality in our solar system because of the small scale of things, Earth recedes from the sun 0.000025mm annually under the force of Hubble expansion, thats about 120 meters worth across the 5 billion year history of our solar system, but at the scale of something the size of a spiral galaxy, those stable perfectly circular orbits don't exist except very close to the core, if the distance to the center of mass becomes large enough then all orbits naturally spiral out enough to have observe consequences across 12 billion years and the expected spread of radial velocities produced is similar to spectrographically measured radial velocity maps of spiral galaxies.

[Anonymous No.12557326]

Yes, current cosmology is based on adding variables and fine tuning. No, theoretically they're detectable. Don't forget it took long time for Higgs to be detected.

[Anonymous No.12557333]

>>12554524
Can it make new predictions?
Is it falsifiable?
Making a model that explains current data is easy.

[Anonymous No.12557568]

>>12557326
>it took long time for Higgs to be detected.

never happened

[Anonymous No.12557615]

>>12557326
>30,000 layers of data filtering on microscopic nuclear explosions = science
the absolute state of particle physics

[Anonymous No.12557639]

>>12556244
That’s sort of the point - it takes very few changes to a metric to lead to off-diagonal elements that produce secondary effects (like the frame dragging around rotating massive bodies). Picking a mass distribution that approximates observations and still gives you a valid EFE solution, but doesn’t oversimplify things the way things like thin disks or uniform halos do, leads to lots of those secondary effects that fill the CDM-gap in the observed rotation curves.

[Anonymous No.12557646]

>>12556706
>>12556706
You literally didn't respond to anything I said.

>has already been peer reviewed and published
Then cite it. Saying "it's published" means nothing. Just because it's published doesn't mean it's true.

[Anonymous No.12557651]

>>12555662
All things being equal, if two approaches can successfully explain all the same observations, the simpler explanation is more likely the correct one.
>A - there’s a new type of matter that only interacts through gravitational forces and is conveniently disperse enough that it’s below our detection threshold
>B - we oversimplified our models of the mass distribution in galaxies and that causes us to miss a lot of important off-diagonal elements in the resulting metrics and affect shit like rotation curves and collisions

[Anonymous No.12557684]

They are upgrading the lhc, just wait for further results

[Anonymous No.12557713]

>>12557639
>Picking a mass distribution that approximates observations and still gives you a valid EFE solution, but doesn’t oversimplify things the way things like thin disks or uniform halos do, leads to lots of those secondary effects that fill the CDM-gap in the observed rotation curves.
In the paper they don't attempt to select the metric based on the observed matter distribution, at all. The parameters they fit in their metric are in terms of the rotation curve, not physical variables like the total mass. So they do not bother to test whether or not the mass distribution implied by their imposed metric is even remotely plausible.
And their model is obviously oversimplied, there's no bulge.

[Anonymous No.12557741]

>>12557684
>trust the plan

[Anonymous No.12557747]

>>12555963
>>12555714
>>12556706
>>12556768
This model doesn't work because of orbital dynamics. These are the results of a particle simulation I did in python assuming an expanding universe. The particle starts on a circular orbit around a point mass and the orbit spirals outwards with the Hubble expansion.

The top panel shows some of the particle trajectory. The black circle is the central mass.

The middle panel shows the velocity of the particle as a function of it's radius (from the central mass) as it spirals out. As you can see the velocity decreases as the particle moves out. I have also drawn guidelines to show the circular orbital speed and the escape speed as a function of radius. The particle stays mostly on a circular orbit, until the very end when it starts to escape.

The bottom panel shows the radius of the particle as a function of time. I have also plotted a line showing how the the orbit should expand purely under the Hubble expansion (a linear expansion in time). As you can see the orbit of the particle expands much faster than you would expect from pure expansion, this is why the velocity decreases.

The reason the velocity of the particle decreases over time is simple orbital mechanics. Imagine the particle on an initial circular orbit. The particle is moved instantaneously to a larger radius. The particle at this new radius now has more than the needed circular velocity, so the orbit becomes elliptical. The particle will thus move further out on the other side of it's new elliptical orbit. This means the mean radius of the particle's orbit has increased beyond the initial displacement. Furthermore the velocity of the particle will be lower further along the elliptical orbit, because kinetic energy is being converted into gravitational potential.

[Anonymous No.12557755]

>>12557747
The same thing will happen with the expanding universe, but it will be so subtle that the particle is always on a circular orbit spiraling outwards. But this is exactly what the simulation shows. The orbital radius expanded much faster than one would expect purely from expansion. Conservation of energy demands that extra gravitational potential comes from somewhere. This is the reason the velocity decreases.

There's nothing fancy in this simulation. And yet it shows clearly why this cannot work.

[Anonymous No.12557769]

>>12557651
>B - we oversimplified our models of the mass distribution in galaxies and that causes us to miss a lot of important off-diagonal elements in the resulting metrics and affect shit like rotation curves and collisions
And how would that fix the CMB powerspectrum? Or the dynamics of clusters? Or the growth of large scale structure? It wouldn't.

[Anonymous No.12557778]

>>12557684
>yeah the LHC is already saying there's fireflies in the beam of this lighthouse and calling it "new particles"
>but just wait until they get $500,000,000,000 to build an even brighter lighthouse
emperor's new clothes niggah
>>12557326
>let's make an incorrect assumption and add numbers to it until it matches observation
doesn't sound like science to me, sounds like piling ad hoc nonsense on top of itself until you've justified the price of your grant

[Anonymous No.12558096]

>>12557769
>And how would that fix the CMB powerspectrum? Or the dynamics of clusters? Or the growth of large scale structure? It wouldn't.
As I just said - relaxing assumptions or incorporating less simplified complex mass-energy densities yields EFE-satisfying metrics with off-axis elements and these elements lead to significant alterations to the predicted dynamics compared to classical or oversimplified GR models (as previously mentioned as an example, going from a static black hole to a rotation black hole leads to effects like frame dragging). Now extrapolate how complicated the metric for something like two colliding galaxies must be and all the important physics that could be lost if you’re oversimplifying it. Same goes for large scale and cosmological modeling - maybe modeling everything as uniform 1D/2D systems is causing us to omit important shit.

I’ll be the first to admit this GR stuff isn’t my area of expertise, but the same logic can be applied to my field (plasma physics) or any other field - when we develop theoretical models we generally make whatever assumptions or constraints or models give us a path of least resistance to deriving a solution, but you risk losing important physics when you oversimplify. Take complex plasmas for example - Orbital Motion Limited Charging of dust particles is the simplest approach to deriving charging current solutions, but everyone and their mother will tell you it’s not good for anything but order of magnitude calculations because it’s omitting a metric shitton of physics - background drifts, irregular grain shapes, non-Maxwellian plasma distributions, etc etc etc.

A more complete solution that takes more stuff into account can make a problem stupid hard to work through, but the path of least resistance isn’t always the best path to take.

[Anonymous No.12558158]

>>12558096
> Now extrapolate how complicated the metric for something like two colliding galaxies
Or what about the very simple case of the primordial universe with low level perturbations, which is somehow radically different from the Newtonian expectation.

>Same goes for large scale and cosmological modeling - maybe modeling everything as uniform 1D/2D systems is causing us to omit important shit.
People don't simulate things that way. They use modified Newtonian prescriptions which allows you to simulate any scenario. Note to use analytic solutions of GR you have to drastically simplify things, because there aren't that many exact solutions. You have things backwards. GR cannot be solved exactly for arbitrary solutions.

And at the end of the day it comes down to "maybe", and it's a whole string of them. It's the relativity of the gaps.

[Anonymous No.12558611]

>>12558158
>They use modified Newtonian prescriptions which allows you to simulate any scenario. Note to use analytic solutions of GR you have to drastically simplify things, because there aren't that many exact solutions. You have things backwards. GR cannot be solved exactly for arbitrary solutions.
What about numeric solutions?

[Anonymous No.12558967]

>>12558611
Numerical relativity is possible, but I've seen absolutely no evidence that switching to NR over Newtonian makes a significant different, you would need a huge discrepancy to explain dark matter.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.08890

Here is a paper doing a cosmological simulation in NR vs Newtonian. The matter powerspectra aren't significantly different. To get rid of dark matter you would need to the structures grow much faster in relativity.

[Anonymous No.12559250]

>>12557755
you modeled an imaginary particle in an imaginary static universe that was propelled to a higher orbit by some imaginary kinetic force. kepler already managed that trick ages ago.

[Anonymous No.12559337]

Dark matter is the modern-day epicycle, its a ridiculous nonsensical idea that was developed by academics who looked out into the universe and saw something they couldn't understand and instead of acknowledging their own ignorance and trying to learn to understand what they were looking that, they came up with an absurd, nonsensical explanation which is impervious to disproof because it can have new imaginary bells and whistles added to it whenever someone punches a hole in the preexisting version. Just add a new epicycle and you're all square again.
The discoveries that were made by Issac Newton would have been made possibly a thousand years earlier if it wasn't for that type of dogmatic thinking which works to prevent advancement.

[Anonymous No.12559340]

>>12559250
No I didn't. There's no force applied, just a change in coordinates like metric expansion. Don't talk shit if you haven't even seen the code.

[Anonymous No.12559349]

>>12559337
>nonsensical explanation which is impervious to disproof because it can have new imaginary bells and whistles added to it whenever someone punches a hole in the preexisting version.
Wrong. Cold Dark Matter is still the standard model mode, it hasn't change from the simplest form that was proposed.
Any model can be rescued from failure by adding additional assumptions, that's not a criticism of dark matter.

[Anonymous No.12559358]

>>12558967
>Numerical relativity is possible, but I've seen absolutely no evidence that switching to NR over Newtonian makes a significant different, you would need a huge discrepancy to explain dark matter.
I’m curious if there’s been much work comparing NR to Newtonian models for things like collisions/approaches of massive bodies or soft-body models of galaxies and clusters

[Anonymous No.12559423]

>>12559358
You'd have to look into it. People don't usually bother because numerical relativity is computational expensive and they would expect Newtonian gravity to be fine.

[Anonymous No.12559442]

>>12554214
Well, no.
We observed gravitational lensing where there shouldn't be.

[Anonymous No.12559455]

>>12559442

[Anonymous No.12559464]

>>12559455
Pretty much everywhere.
Now, you can be of doubting, but unless you build your own Hubble space telescope, I won't be able to convince you.

[Anonymous No.12559466]

>>12559455
See:
>>12555785

[Anonymous No.12559471]

>>12554214
just go with the hard data. the rest is just a bunch of hoomans speculating.

[Anonymous No.12559571]

>>12554214
If you ever feel like Dark matter/energy problem is making you loose your mind, just remember the better problem:
>why is there something instead of nothing?

[Anonymous No.12559788]

>particle that only interacts gravitationally
>doesn't all just collapse into a single lump
explain

[Anonymous No.12560420]

>>12559340
elliptical orbits only exist in imaginary static universes such as the one in your code and in your head. open the window and look outside, theres a whole real world out there that full of observable features which contradict your imagination.

[Anonymous No.12560757]

>>12554227
>And what if there is no more accurate model?
Accept human limitations that there's no reason to assume we can know the true nature of the universe and instead of assuming there is invisible matter/energy theres... parts of the universe we can't comprehend. What if there was more fundamental forces that we are all lumping in as being the same 1 or two things?
Is it possible gravity ISN'T a constant inverse square law? Especially considering it's possible spacetime isn't uniform.

[Anonymous No.12560772]

>>12559788
inb4 >muh momentum and fifth fundamental force

[Anonymous No.12560805]

>>12560420
The orbit clearly isn't elliptical. And it's not static. I tested your idea, it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.12560837]

>>12560805
its not anyone here's idea, its already been published in peer reviewed academic journals in two languages, one being english. french and german versions are on the way too. your code that you made up has not been reviewed by anyone other than yourself. computer simulations are often just a weak substitute for a lack of analytical math ability. don't know how to integrate? let the computer draw tiny squares under the curve and count them for you. thats how computational scientists do math lol

[Anonymous No.12560856]

>>12560837
And yet you wont cite any of these papers. I really doubt the paper was actually discussing this because it clearly doesn't work, anyone who's studied physics at a serious level can see that.

>your code that you made up has not been reviewed by anyone other than yourself.
Then write one yourself. By ignorantly rejecting it without any rational argument you're just proving that you actually aren't interested in a rational discussion.

>computer simulations are often just a weak substitute for a lack of analytical math ability.
Feel free to solve it analytically, but I'm quite sure it's impossible. Lots of physical problems cannot be solved with pen and paper, and so they need to be solved numerically.

[Anonymous No.12562528]

>>12560856
>i don't know how to do my own research
search engines are a good place to look if you don't have access to a astronomical library. if you're near tucson, steward observatory's headquarters on the university of arizona campus has a very complete astronomical library on the 4th floor thats open to the public, theres graduate students there you can hire as research assistants if you can't figure out how to look things up on your own. of course you'll have a lot of trouble understanding most of what you read in the analytical mathematics heavy articles because you're a computer simulation retard, but they're peer reviewed, so you'll just have to accept that daddy says its real science. they don't have the farsi stuff in arizona, but they do have dr william tift if he is still alive, you can have a chat with him about redshift quantization ask him if he thinks the big bang theory is just a thinly disguised rewrite of the book of genesis, part of an alternative pseudoscientific bible for people who self identify as atheists, but still need god-like authority figures to tell them them what to think.

[Anonymous No.12562965]

>>12562528
>i don't know how to do my own research
Piss off. Now I know you're talking out your ass.
There's a reason published papers cite papers specifically and give the biographical data, because it would be fucking impossible to find most papers otherwise. You haven't given the authors, the paper titles, the journal, the year, nothing. You've told me it's in English but also Farsi, which is completely fucking useless. Try publishing a paper where you don't give a citation, you just tell them the language. The reviewer will send it back.
It is downright fucking rude to tell someone to just "look it up", like there aren't thousands of papers on rotation curves. No I'm not going to waste hours of my life looking for a paper which may or may not exist, and I would have no way of even knowing if it was the right one.

>search engines are a good place to look if you don't have access to a astronomical library.
You clearly don't know anything about research. Everything is on ADS now. If you cannot find the paper on there then there is no way anyone else can.

https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/

>they're peer reviewed, so you'll just have to accept that daddy says its real science.
The text may be peer reviewed, but you haven't cited a fucking thing. Your "rational debate" consists of you claiming that these papers definitely exist, and must be correct. A desperate grasp at an argument from authority but you won't actually even cite the evidence. It's retarded.

[Anonymous No.12562974]

>>12562965
>>12562528
>i don't know how to do my own research
And note also that I did do my own fucking research. I wrote that simulation, I showed it was bullshit. That's research. Telling people to accept some random paper because you claim it's peer reviewed is not scientific and it's not research.

[Anonymous No.12563023]

>>12562528
This article was "peer reviewed". Not all peer review is created equal. Something that is claimed to be peer reviewed does not ascend to be unquestionable fact, as if errata don't exist.

[Anonymous No.12563291]

>>12563023
The dark matter stuff is all peer reviewed too and everyone takes it as gospel even though its a non-scientific, undisprovable theory. same goes for the big bang, it can't be questioned because the peers say so even the they also let some minor actors and publications get away with blaspheming the gospel truth of the big bang. Its almost as if the peers are willing to slightly acknowledge the fact that we're all stuck here on Earth in our one rest frame and single point of view and that makes speculating about the entirety of the universe and expecting to be correct an absurd proposition of outlandish and unmatchably grandiose intellectual overreach.
Nice to see that the community of professional astronomers are finally starting to develop a sense of humility.

[Anonymous No.12563950]

>>12563291
lol

[Anonymous No.12564383]

>>12563291
>Nice to see that the community of professional astronomers are finally starting to develop a sense of humility.
thats the most outlandish unscientific thing i've ever seen posted on this board

[Anonymous No.12564833]

>>12563291
> it can't be questioned because the peers say so even the they also let some minor actors and publications get away with blaspheming the gospel truth of the big bang.
>When you refute your own stupid assertion before you even finish the sentence.